Supreme Court backs biological definition of woman
A years-long and highly polarising legal battle came to a head today, after judges at the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in the Equality Act should be based on biological sex, excluding transgender women.
The ruling reverses 20 years of understanding in Britain of how the law recognises trans men and women with gender recognition certificates.
Five Supreme Court judges were asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain, and rule on what the law means by “sex”: in other words, whether it means biological sex or whether it means legal, "certificated" sex as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. Today, they ruled that it does not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).
The verdict is a victory for campaign group, For Women Scotland, which brought the case against the Scottish government, arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to women who are born female since sex is an "immutable biological state". The judges have sided with this group over the Scottish government, which argued in court that those with a GRC are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.
The legal dispute began in 2018 when the Scottish parliament passed a bill designed to ensure gender balance on public sector boards. For Women Scotland objected that ministers had included trans women as part of the quotas in that law.
It’s too soon to say exactly what impact today’s ruling will have. But it could hold far-reaching implications when it comes to single-sex spaces, especially women-only ones, in the UK. Previously, employers were at risk of being sued if they denied trans women access to services and spaces reserved exclusively for women, such as changing rooms, refuges and sports clubs. Today’s verdict may have changed that.
This morning, the Supreme Court’s Lord Hodge spoke of women in the UK’s hard-won fight for freedoms and equality, before stressing that trans men and women comprise a "vulnerable and often harassed minority", who "struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity".
“We counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not," he added.
Though it will inevitably be seen in such terms - as a win for gender-critical campaigners.
Speaking outside the court following the ruling, For Women Scotland co-founder Susan Smith told reporters: "Today, the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex.”
Meanwhile, Amnesty International UK, which joined with the Scottish government in the Supreme Court case, said of today’s verdict: “There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment”. A reference to Lord Hodge’s comments earlier that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is not affected by this ruling.
First Minister, John Swinney, who previously backed Sturgeon’s trans policies but has since gone quiet on gender-related matters, said the Scottish government accepted the judgement. "We will now engage with UK ministers and with the EHRC to look at the implications of the ruling," he added.
For a long time, ministers have dodged questions about this case by insisting they couldn’t comment on live litigation. Now, that convenient excuse no longer applies. Meaning politicians at Westminster and Holyrood will come under pressure to make their position on such a deeply divisive issue clear.
Caitlin Allen
Deputy Editor
ON REACTION TODAY
Adam Boulton
Yes, politics really is a rollercoaster
David Waywell
What the the current crop of super-rich space tourists have taught us
ALSO KNOW
US judge says he could hold Trump in contempt of court - Federal judge, James Boasberg, has said he could hold the Trump administration in contempt of court for "willful disregard" of an order to halt the departure of deportation flights carrying more than 200 people to El Salvador last month. The administration had invoked a 227-year-old law meant to protect the US during wartime to carry out the mass deportation.
Members of UK’s largest Jewish body condemn Netanyahu - “Israel’s soul is being ripped out and we, members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, fear for the future of the Israel we love and have such close ties to,” wrote dozens of members of the UK’s largest Jewish representative body in a letter published in The Financial Times, which criticised Netanyahu’s government for resuming its offensive in Gaza. It is the first public show of opposition to Israel’s 18-month long war against Hamas from members of the board.
UK inflation falls faster than expected - Inflation fell from 2.8% to 2.6% last month, hitting its lowest level since last October, according to new data from the ONS. Falling petrol prices helped to drive it down.
US backtracks on Ukraine aid figure - Washington has significantly lowered its estimate of the value of assistance it has given Ukraine, and therefore the amount Ukraine must repay, from $300bn to $100bn.
FIVE THINGS
POLITICO unpacks the Romanian election scenarios that are scaring Brussels.
As the threat of war between China and Taiwan looms, War on The Rocks explains why Taiwan’s biggest problem is a cultural one.
Carboncopy delves into the environmental implications of Trump’s tariffs.
As Italy’s leader heads to D.C., The New York Times asks: will it pay off?
The phenomenon of rental apps. Wired investigates how young people are making up to $36k a year renting their T-Shirts and speakers.